The two-state solution refers to the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict currently under discussion, which calls for "two states for two peoples." The two-state solution envisages the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel.
The main point on which the two-state solution formula differs from those for an independent Palestinian state is that it calls for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. To achieve a two-state solution, a number of core issues must be resolved, including the borders of the Palestinian state, the citizenship of the new Palestinian state, the status of Palestinian refugees outside the final borders, and the status of Arab citizens of present-day Israel, besides the future of East Jerusalem.
Another option is the binational solution, which could either be a twin regime federalist arrangement or a unitary state,[1] and the Allon Plan, also known as the 'no-state solution'.
Over the years, polls have consistently showed "respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement."[2] In a 2007 poll, over one quarter of the Palestinian respondents in the West Bank and Gaza Strip rejected both a binational and two state solution; 46% preferred the two-state solution, and 26% preferred the binational solution.[3] The two-state solution also enjoys majority support in Israeli polls although there has been some erosion to its prospects over time.[4] However, over 80% of Palestinians would not give up the Palestinian "right of return," which would end Israel's Jewish majority. As such, the majority of Palestinians do not accept the concept of two states for two peoples. [5]
Contents |
The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine; [6][7] was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership; and the British government rejected partition as impracticable [8]
Partition was again proposed by the 1947 UN Partition plan for the division of Palestine. It proposed a three-way division, again with Jerusalem held separately, under international control. The partition plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership. However, the plan was rejected by the leadership of Arab nations and the Palestinian leadership at the time, which opposed any partition of Palestine and any Jewish presence in the area.
The first indication that the PLO would be willing to accept a two-state solution, on at least an interim basis, was articulated by Said Hammami in the mid-1970s.[9][10]
Security Council resolutions dating back to June 1976 supporting the two state solution based on the pre-1967 lines were vetoed by the United States,[11] which argued that the borders must be negotiated directly by the parties. The idea has had overwhelming support in the UN General Assembly since the mid 1970's.[12]
The Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988, which referenced the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and "UN resolutions since 1947" in general, was interpreted as an indirect recognition of the State of Israel, and support for a two-state solution. The Partition Plan was invoked to provide legitimacy to Palestinian statehood. Subsequent clarifications were taken to amount to the first explicit Palestinian recognition of Israel.
Many Palestinians and Israelis, as well as the Arab League,[13] have stated that they would accept a 2-state solution based on 1949 Armistice Agreements. In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement.[14]
However, a strong view is that neither side would be able to agree to a division that yielded the Temple Mount to the other side. As an attempt to break the stalemate, U.S. President Bill Clinton proposed dividing sovereignty of the site vertically - the ground and area below coming under Israeli sovereignty, while that above the ground (i.e. the Temple Mount, called Haram al-Sharif by Muslims containing the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque) would be under Palestinian sovereignty. A similar idea was suggested for tunnels and elevated roads connecting communities. In the end neither side accepted the concept.[15]
In the late 1990s, considerable diplomatic work went into negotiating a two-state solution between the parties, including the Oslo Accords and culminating in the Camp David 2000 Summit, and follow-on negotiations at Taba in January 2001. However, no final agreement was reached. Variations include a Palestinian state in all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip or some portion thereof. In some proposals raised in talks with the Palestinians, there would have been territorial adjustments involving some small sections of current Israeli territory.
Some argue that the two-state solution was implemented in 1922 when Britain split off the eastern 75% of the Mandate to create Transjordan, which became Jordan, a state with an Palestinian Arab majority population.
prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu favors a two-state solution in which a Palestinian state is granted most of the attributes of an independent state but denied certain aspects of sovereignty that might allow it to threaten Israel. Netanyahu argues, for example, that the future state's ability to import arms should be restricted.
Possible two-state solutions have been discussed by Saudi and US leaders.[16] In 2002, Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia proposed the Arab Peace Initiative, which garnered the unanimous support of the Arab League. President Bush announced his support for a Palestinian state, opening the way for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1397,[17] supporting a two-state solution. Christian communities in Israel also back the solution.
In a 2007 poll in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by the Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre, 46.7% of respondents favored a two-state solution, followed by 26.5% for a binational state.[18] However support is lower among younger Palestinians; U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted: "Increasingly, the Palestinians who talk about a two-state solution are my age."[19]
At the Annapolis Conference in November 2007, the three major parties—Palestinians (Fatah but not Hamas government in Gaza), Israelis, and Americans—agreed on a two-state solution as the outline for negotiations.
On June 4, 2009, US President Barack Obama delivered a major address to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt. In the speech, he supported the two-state solution:[20]
"For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security." - President Barack Obama.
On June 14, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech at Bar Ilan University, where he, for the first time in his career, endorsed the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. He called on it to be demilitarized.
On July 19, 2009, Netanyahu said "United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel," and "Israeli sovereignty in the city is indisputable." while Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat countered with "The job of the Israeli Prime Minister should be to prepare his people for what it takes to make peace," and "He knows very much that there will never be peace between Palestinians and Israelis without East Jerusalem being the capital of the Palestinian state."[21]
Since entering office, Obama has halted the sale of advanced weapons to Israel while demanding that they withdraw from the entire West Bank so that a Palestinian state could be set up.[22]
Abbas said that if peace talks failed, the PA would ask the UN General Assembly to declare a Palestinian state in September 2011.[23]
Both Netanyahu and Abbas have stated that any solution must have East Jerusalem on their side of the border.[24][25]
On 19 May 2011, Obama stated that the 1967 borders with mutually agreed upon swaps should be the basis of the final agreement.[26] The EU said that they would back the United States position.[27]
AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr replied that an even-handed approach would put Israel at a disadvantage and that it must be the Palestinians who make a positive step forward.[28]
On 28 May 2011, Abbas said that the conditions laid out by Netanyahu had left no foundations for negotiations and that the only remaining option would be recognition of statehood by the United Nations.[29] However Joseph Deiss said that this move could be vetoed at the UN Security Council.[30]
In 2011 Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said that if Israel did not cede all the 1967 territories, then the Palestinians would have no alternative to seeking Israeli citizenship.[31] The call for a return to the 1967 lines was echoed by Nabil Shaath.[32]
The New York Times,[33] reported that Egypt and Jordan were concerned about having to retake responsibility for Gaza and the West Bank. In effect, the result would be Gaza returning to Egyptian rule, and the West Bank to Jordanian, referred to as the Three state solution. [34] In a September 2008 publication[35] of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Giora Eiland wrote that:
This proposal suggests that rather than establishing another Arab state, the parties could return control over most of the West Bank to Jordan. Until recently, such an idea was rejected completely by everyone, especially the Jordanians themselves. Today, however, more and more Jordanians, Palestinians, and Israelis have come to believe that this is the right solution. The main reason for this change of heart is the rise of Hamas. Israel can curb the group’s ascendancy, but only as long as Israel occupies the West Bank. If a Palestinian state is established there, many fear that it would be taken over by Hamas. Such a scenario could have far-reaching consequences for Jordan. To be sure, the notion of pursuing alternative solutions is not yet politically correct, and therefore no official Jordanian or Palestinian support could be given to such efforts at the moment. Nevertheless, tacit support for this idea has been expressed in private talks.
Some Israeli journalists suggest that the Palestinians are unprepared to accept a Jewish State on any terms.[36][37] According to one poll, "fewer than 2 in 10 Arabs, both Palestinian and all others, believe in Israel's right to exist as a nation with a Jewish majority."[38] Another poll, however, invoked by the US State Department, suggests that "78 percent of Palestinians and 74 percent of Israelis believe a peace agreement that leads to both states living side by side as good neighbors" is “essential or desirable”.[39]
The Palestinians have "shown serious interest" in a two-state solution since the mid-1970s, and its mainstream leadership has embraced the concept since the 1982 Arab Summit in Fez.[40] However, in March 2009 Mohammad Dahlan of the PLO stated that, “For the 1,000th time, I want to reaffirm that we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Rather we are asking Hamas not to do so, because Fatah never recognized Israel’s right to exist.”[36]
By 2010, when direct talks were scheduled to be re-started, continued growth of settlements on the west bank and continued strong support of settlements by the Israeli government had greatly reduced the land and resources that would be available to a Palestinian state creating doubt among Palestinians and left-wing Israelis that a two-state solution continued to be viable.[41]